Search

Objectives: The aim of the present superiority study was to determine the effect of systemic antibiotics primarily on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and post-surgical complications in patients undergoing oral implant therapy with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR)., Materials and Methods: A total of 236 medically and periodontally healthy patients received oral implants with simultaneous GBR at seven centres. Pre-operative antibiotics of 2 g amoxicillin were prescribed to the test group 1 hr prior to surgery and 500 mg thrice daily on days 1-3 after surgery. The control group was given a placebo. Group allocation was performed randomly. Primary outcome variables were PROMs recorded as visual analogue scale scores assessed on days 1-7 and 14 on pain, swelling, haematoma and bleeding. Post-operative complications as secondary outcome variables were examined at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks from surgery. Chi-square tests and repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed for statistical evaluation., Results: No statistically significant differences (p > .05) between the two groups were detected for the evaluated PROMs. The same was noted with respect to post-surgical complications. Four implants were lost-three in the test group and one in the control group., Conclusion: In this trial, systemic antibiotics did not provide additional benefits to PROMs, nor the prevention of post-surgical complications in medically and periodontally healthy patients undergoing oral implant therapy with simultaneous GBR. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are still required to support the clinical outcomes of this study., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: To analyze the effect of implant placement and loading protocols (protocol types) on the survival of single implant tooth replacements in different locations. Materials and Methods: An electronic search was conducted to identify clinical trials regarding outcomes of single implants subjected to different treatment protocols. A weighted mean survival rate for each protocol type in the anterior maxilla, anterior mandible, posterior maxilla, and posterior mandible was calculated. Study design, sample size, and outcome homogeneity were used to evaluate the validation of each protocol type in different locations. Results: A total of 45 publications (13 RCTs, 21 prospective studies, and 11 retrospective studies) were included. The anterior maxilla was the most reported site (35 studies, 1,391 implants, weighted survival rate: 97.5% to 99.6%). Immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C) and late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A) were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). For the posterior maxilla (19 studies, 567 implants, weighted survival rate: 85.7% to 100%), Type 1C was SCV. The anterior mandible was the least-reported site (three studies, 42 implants, weighted survival rate: 98.5% to 100%). For the posterior mandible (13 studies, 447 implants, weighted survival rate: 95.0% to 100%), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) was SCV. It was not possible to perform a metaanalysis due to the limited number of controlled studies that had the same comparison and considerable heterogeneity in study design. Conclusion: Differences were found in the level of scientific evidence between the anterior and posterior and the maxilla and mandible, indicating that location is a consideration when selecting treatment protocol for a single implant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study assessed bone height between novel tapered implants at different inter-implant thread peak (TP) distances, and the impact of TP distance from outer buccal bone (BB) on marginal bone levels (MBL). Materials and Methods: Fully tapered implants with 0.5-mm thread depth and TP diameter 1 mm wider than the shoulder diameter were placed in healed ridges of minipigs. On one side, four implants were placed with inter-implant TP distances of 1, 2, or 3 mm corresponding to inter-implant implant shoulder distances of 2, 3, and 4 mm respectively. Three implants were placed on the other side with TP distances to outer BB of > 1 mm, 0.5–1 mm, or < 0.5 mm. After 12 weeks, (a) first bone-to-implant contact (fBIC), total BIC, bone area-to-total area (BATA), and coronal bone height between implants (Bi ½ max) for inter-implant distance, and (b) fBIC, BIC, and perpendicular crest to implant shoulder (pCIS) for BB were evaluated. Results: No significant differences in bone healing and inter-implant bone height were noted for any of the TP distances. BB resorption was significant when TP distance to outer BB was < 0.5 mm. However, fBIC was lowest with TP to outer BB of 1.75 mm. Conclusions: Inter-implant bone height between adjacent implants can be maintained even at an inter-implant TP distance as low as 1 mm. A minimum TP to outer BB distance of 0.75 mm is required for predictable maintenance of MBL. Clinical relevance: Inter-implant distance and BB thickness are clinically relevant and require preclinical research to clarify concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the clinical value of membranes in bone augmentation procedures such as ridge augmentation with simultaneous (one-stage) and delayed (two-stage) implant placement, sinus augmentation surgery, ridge preservation and immediate implant placement. Materials and methods: In April 2016, Embase, Medline (Ovid-SP), Cochrane Central, Web of Science and PubMed (as supplied by the publisher) were searched. There were no restrictions regarding language or publication date. Randomised controlled trials that reported membranes in bone augmentation procedures with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months after implant loading or that described geometrical changes of the bone graft at re-entry were included. Membrane placement had to be the only variable in the procedure. Outcomes were implant failure, complications, horizontal bone gain and resorption, graft resorption, defect height reduction, marginal bone loss around implants, aesthetic results and patient satisfaction. The results were pooled using fixed-effect models with mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes. Results: After screening the titles and abstracts of 1843 papers, 32 potentially eligible articles were selected. Seventeen articles involving 10 trials were included in this review. These studies presented outcome data for 355 patients. Seven trials were considered to be at a high risk of bias, two at a low risk of bias and one at an unclear risk of bias. Insufficient evidence was found to determine whether there were differences in implant failure rates, marginal bone level changes, aesthetic results or patient satisfaction. For one-stage ridge augmentation (two trials; n = 52), there was evidence of more horizontal bone gain (MD: 0.84 mm, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.21, P < 0.00001; two trials), defect height reduction (MD: 18.36%, 95% CI: 10.23 to 26.50, P < 0.00001; two trials), and prevention of graft resorption (P = 0.004; one trial) in favour of the membrane-covered group, although substantial heterogeneity was found for horizontal bone gain (Chi²; P = 0.05, I²=74%). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether any differences exist in two-stage ridge augmentation (three trials; n = 81), sinus augmentation (one trial; n = 104) and ridge preservation (one trial; n = 20). For immediate implant placement (three trials; n = 98), there was evidence of an increased defect height reduction in favour of the membrane-covered groups (MD: 6.25%, 95% CI: 1.67 to 10.82, P = 0.007; two trials), although with substantial heterogeneity (Chi²; P = 0.03, I² = 79%). More complications were observed when a membrane was used (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.07 to 5.93, P = 0.03; three trials). Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence regarding the effects of membranes on bone augmentation procedures to support any definitive conclusions. Only 10 studies were included; they had limited sample sizes and short follow-up periods, and the majority were at a high risk of bias. However, no difference in implant failure was found, and the possible clinical value is still unknown, as long-term clinical parameters such as marginal bone loss, aesthetic results and patient satisfaction have been insufficiently studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim was to analyse the outcomes of early implant placement after 6 and 12 weeks of healing in ridge preserved sites in a canine model. Materials and methods: Implants were placed in second maxillary incisors sites in 9 dogs 6 weeks after grafting of the sockets with 90% deproteinized bovine bone mineral in 10% collagen matrix (DBBMC) and closure with resorbable type I/III porcine collagen matrix (PCM). The implants were randomly assigned to 6 (T6) and 12 (T12) weeks of healing. Results: The percentage of bone‐to‐implant contact (%BIC), old bone, new bone and residual DBBMC was similar between T6 and T12. In relation to the implant shoulder (IS), the original bone crest (IS‐ROB) was more apical on the buccal than the palatal side. The regenerated bone crest (IS‐C) and IS‐ROB were similar between groups. However, the distance from IS to first bone‐to implant contact (IS‐fBIC) was significantly less in T12 compared with T6 (p =.022; Wilcoxon signed‐rank test). The bucco‐palatal ridge dimensions between T6 and T12 were similar. Conclusions: This study confirms that implants can successfully be placed early in ridge preserved maxillary second incisor sites and are osseointegrated by 6 weeks. There were significantly lower IS‐fBIC values at 12 weeks than at 6 weeks on the buccal aspect. The original buccal bone crest underwent greater corono‐apical resorption than the palatal crest. The %BIC, relative proportions of mineralized tissues and dimensions of the alveolar ridge demonstrated stability between 6 and 12 weeks of healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The objectives of this systematic review are (1) to quantitatively estimate the esthetic outcomes of implants placed in postextraction sites, and (2) to evaluate the influence of simultaneous bone augmentation procedures on these outcomes. Materials and Methods: Electronic and manual searches of the dental literature were performed to collect information on esthetic outcomes based on objective criteria with implants placed after extraction of maxillary anterior and premolar teeth. All levels of evidence were accepted (case series studies required a minimum of 5 cases). Results: From 1,686 titles, 114 full-text articles were evaluated and 50 records included for data extraction. The included studies reported on single-tooth implants adjacent to natural teeth, with no studies on multiple missing teeth identified (6 randomized controlled trials, 6 cohort studies, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 33 case series studies). Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found. A meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The available evidence suggests that esthetic outcomes, determined by esthetic indices (predominantly the pink esthetic score) and positional changes of the peri-implant mucosa, may be achieved for single-tooth implants placed after tooth extraction. Immediate (type 1) implant placement, however, is associated with a greater variability in outcomes and a higher frequency of recession of > 1 mm of the midfacial mucosa (eight studies; range 9% to 41% and median 26% of sites, 1 to 3 years after placement) compared to early (type 2 and type 3) implant placement (2 studies; no sites with recession > 1 mm). In two retrospective studies of immediate (type 1) implant placement with bone graft, the facial bone wall was not detectable on cone beam CT in 36% and 57% of sites. These sites had more recession of the midfacial mucosa compared to sites with detectable facial bone. Two studies of early implant placement (types 2 and 3) combined with simultaneous bone augmentation with GBR (contour augmentation) demonstrated a high frequency (above 90%) of facial bone wall visible on CBCT. Recent studies of immediate (type 1) placement imposed specific selection criteria, including thick tissue biotype and an intact facial socket wall, to reduce esthetic risk. There were no specific selection criteria for early (type 2 and type 3) implant placement. Conclusions: Acceptable esthetic outcomes may be achieved with implants placed after extraction of teeth in the maxillary anterior and premolar areas of the dentition. Recession of the midfacial mucosa is a risk with immediate (type 1) placement. Further research is needed to investigate the most suitable biomaterials to reconstruct the facial bone and the relationship between long-term mucosal stability and presence/absence of the facial bone, the thickness of the facial bone, and the position of the facial bone crest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6‐mm or 11‐mm implants, placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible, during a 5‐year follow‐up period. Materials and methods: Ninety‐five patients with adequate bone height for 11‐mm implants, were randomly allocated to a 6‐mm group (test group with short implants) or an 11‐mm group (control group with standard‐length implants). Two or three implants of the same length were placed in each patient and after 6 weeks loaded with a splinted provisional restoration. This was followed by definitive splinted restoration 6 months after implant placement. Clinical and radiographic parameters, including the occurrence of complications were recorded. Results: A total of 49 patients were enrolled to receive 6‐mm implants (n = 108) and 46 patients to receive 11‐mm implants (n = 101). Three implants (two of 6 mm and one of 11 mm in length) were lost before loading and one 6‐mm implant after 15 months of function, and one 11‐mm implant was lost during the first year of function. The 5‐year survival rates were 96.0% and 98.9% in the 6‐mm and 11‐mm group, respectively. The mean marginal bone level changes 5 years post‐loading were 0.01 ± 0.45 mm (bone gain) in the 6‐mm group and −0.12 ± 0.93 mm (bone loss) in the 11‐mm group (p =.7670). Clinical parameters, including plaque, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth were not significantly different between the groups, and also technical complications were low. Conclusion: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of 6‐mm short and 11‐mm standard‐length implants were not different during a 5‐year evaluation period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the stability of apically tapered and straight (non‐tapered cylindrical) implants at the time of immediate placement and to histologically evaluate the healing outcomes after 6 weeks. Materials and Methods: The second maxillary incisors were extracted bilaterally in nine dogs. After randomization, apically tapered and straight implants with a 3.3 mm shoulder diameter were inserted into the extraction sockets. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) of the implants was recorded after placement. Peri‐implant defects on the buccal aspect were filled with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and covered with resorbable type I/III porcine collagen matrix. After 6 weeks of healing, sections were prepared for histological and morphometric analysis. Results: All implant sites healed uneventfully. The apically tapered implants had significantly higher ISQ values compared to straight implants at placement (p =.009). The histomorphometric outcomes 6 weeks following implant placement in both experimental groups were similar, except in the apico‐palatal region. Apically tapered implants demonstrated significantly less percentage bone‐to‐implant contact (p =.035) in the apico‐palatal region. At both implant types, substantial corono‐apical resorption of the buccal bone wall was noted in the coronal 2 mm of the implant. Conclusion: Apically tapered implants had significantly higher ISQ values at immediate placement compared to straight implants. The healing outcomes and remodelling of the buccal bone wall were similar for both implant designs. In the apico‐palatal region, there was less %BIC at the implant surface at apically tapered implants compared to straight implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflict-of-interest statement: None declared. This review is based on a Cochrane systematic review entitled 'Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants)' published in The Cochrane Library (see http://www.cochrane.org/ for information). Cochrane systematic reviews are regularly updated to include new research, and in response to comments and criticisms from readers. If you wish to comment on this review, please send your comments to the Cochrane website or to Marco Esposito. The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. The results of a Cochrane review can be interpreted differently, depending on people's perspectives and circumstances. Please consider the conclusions presented carefully. They are the opinions of the review authors, and are not necessarily shared by the Cochrane Collaboration. Purpose: To evaluate success, complications, aesthetics and patient satisfaction among immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants in post-extractive sockets and whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary and which is the most effective augmentation technique. Materials and methods: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to the 2nd of June 2010 for randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 1 year in function comparing immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants, or comparing various bone augmentation procedures around the inserted implants. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures, complications, patient satisfaction and preference including aesthetics, aesthetics evaluated by a dentist, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, etc. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. Results were expressed as fixed effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Fourteen eligible RCTs were identified but only seven trials could be included. Four RCTs evaluated implant placement timing. Two RCTs compared immediate versus delayed implants in 126 patients and found no statistically significant differences. One RCT compared immediate-delayed Copyright by versus delayed implants in 46 patients. After 2 years, patients in the immediate-delayed group perceived the time to functional loading significantly shorter, were more satisfied and an independent blinded assessor judged the level of the peri-implant marginal mucosa in relation to that of the adjacent teeth as more appropriate (RR = 1.68; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.72). These differences disappeared 5 years after loading, and significantly more complications occurred in the immediatedelayed group (RR = 4.20; 95% CI 1.01 to 17.43). One RCT compared immediate with immediately delayed implants in 16 patients for 2 years and found no differences. Three RCTs evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants immediately placed in extraction sockets. No statistically significant differences were observed when evaluating whether autogenous bone is needed in postextractive sites (one trial with 26 patients) or which was the most effective augmentation technique (two trials with 56 patients). Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to determine the possible advantages or disadvantages of immediate, immediate-delayed or delayed implants, therefore these preliminary conclusions are based on few underpowered trials often judged to be at high risk of bias. There is a suggestion that immediate and immediate-delayed implants may be at a higher risk of implant failure and complications than delayed implants, on the other hand the aesthetic outcome might be better when placing implants just after tooth extraction. There is not enough reliable evidence supporting or refuting the need for augmentation procedures at immediate implants placed in fresh extraction sockets or whether any of the augmentation techniques is superior to the others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflict-of-interest statement: Marco Esposito, Pietro Felice and Paul Coulthard are among the authors of four of the included trials, however, they were not involved in the quality assessment of these trials. This review is based on a Cochrane systematic review entitled 'Interventions for replacing missing teeth: augmentation procedures of the maxillary sinus' published in The Cochrane Library (see http:// www.cochrane.org/ for information). Cochrane systematic reviews are regularly updated to include new research and in response to comments and criticisms from readers. If you wish to comment on this review, please send your comments to the Cochrane website or to Marco Esposito. The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. The results of a Cochrane Review can be interpreted differently, depending on people's perspectives and circumstances. Please consider the conclusions presented carefully. They are the opinions of the review authors, and are not necessarily shared by the Cochrane Collaboration. Background: Insufficient bone volume is a common problem encountered in the rehabilitation of the edentulous posterior maxillae with implant supported prostheses. Bone volume is limited by the presence of the maxillary sinus together with loss of alveolar bone height. Sinus lift procedures increase bone volume by augmenting the sinus cavity with autogenous bone and/or commercially available biomaterials. Objectives: To test whether and when augmentation of the maxillary sinus is necessary and which are the most effective augmentation techniques for rehabilitating patients with implant-supported prostheses. Search methods: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were hand searched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. The last electronic search was conducted on 7th January 2010. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting the maxillary sinus for rehabilitation with dental implants reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. Data collection and analysis: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this review was to evaluate the clinical outcomes for the different time points of implant placement following tooth extraction. Materials and Methods: A PubMed search and a hand search of selected journals were performed to identify clinical studies published in English that reported on outcomes of implants in postextraction sites. Only studies that included 10 or more patients were accepted. For implant success/survival outcomes, only studies with a mean follow-up period of at least 12 months from the time of implant placement were included. The following outcomes were identified: (1) change in peri-implant defect dimension, (2) implant survival and success, and (3) esthetic outcomes. Results and Conclusions: Of 1,107 abstracts and 170 full-text articles considered, 91 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Bone augmentation procedures are effective in promoting bone fill and defect resolution at implants in postextraction sites, and are more successful with immediate (type 1) and early placement (type 2 and type 3) than with late placement (type 4). The majority of studies reported survival rates of over 95%. Similar survival rates were observed for immediate (type 1) and early (type 2) placement. Recession of the facial mucosal margin is common with immediate (type 1) placement. Risk indicators included a thin tissue biotype, a facial malposition of the implant, and a thin or damaged facial bone wall. Early implant placement (type 2 and type 3) is associated with a lower frequency of mucosal recession compared to immediate placement (type 1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without horizontal or vertical bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation. Objectives: to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary and which is the most effective technique for horizontal and vertical bone augmentation. Search methods: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were hand searched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. The last electronic search was conducted on 11 June 2009. Selection criteria: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone horizontally and/or vertically for implant treatment that reported the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. Trials were divided into two broad categories: horizontal augmentation and vertical augmentation techniques. Data collection and analysis: screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. Results: 13 RCTs out of 18 potentially eligible trials were suitable for inclusion. Three RCTs (106 patients) dealt with horizontal and 10 trials (218 patients) with vertical augmentation. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, only one meta-analysis could be performed. When comparing whether vertical augmentation procedures were more advantageous than short implants, a meta-analysis of two trials resulted in more implant failures OR = 5.74 (95% CI 0.92 to 35.82; borderline significance, P = 0.06) and statistically significantly more complications OR = 4.97 (95% CI 1.10 to 22.40) in the vertically augmented group. When comparing various horizontal augmentation techniques (three trials) no statistically significant differences were observed. When comparing various vertical bone augmentation techniques (eight trials) no statistically significant differences were observed except for three trials which showed that more vertical bone gain could be obtained with osteodistraction than with inlay autogenous grafts (mean difference 3.25 mm; 95% CI 1.66 to 4.84), and with bone substitutes rather than autogenous bone in guided bone regeneration (mean difference 0.60 mm; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.99) in posterior atrophic mandibles, and that patients preferred a bone substitute block over a block of autogenous bone taken from the iliac crest (OR = 0.03; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.64; P = 0.02). Conclusions: conclusions are based on few trials including few patients, sometimes having a short follow-up, and often being judged to be at high risk of bias. Various techniques can augment bone horizontally and vertically, but it is unclear which are the most efficient. Short implants appear to be a better alternative to vertical bone grafting of resorbed mandibles. Complications, especially for vertical augmentation, are common. Some bone substitutes could be a preferable alternative to autogenous bone. Osteodistraction osteogenesis allows for more vertical bone augmentation than other techniques, which, on the other hand, can allow for horizontal augmentation at the same time. Titanium screws may be preferable to resorbable screws to fixate onlay bone grafts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To test (a) whether and when bone augmentation procedures are necessary and (b) which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into 3 categories: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation (or both); (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants. Materials and Methods: An exhaustive search was conducted for all randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT5) comparing different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on October 1, 2005. Results: Thirteen RCTs of 30 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 332 patients were suitable for inclusion. Six trials evaluated techniques for vertical and/or horizontal bone augmentation. Four trials evaluated techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets, and 3 trials evaluated techniques to treat fenestrated implants. Conclusions: Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration procedures and distraction osteogenesis can be used to augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures are needed at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets; however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin than sites treated with barriers alone. More bone was regenerated around fenestrated implants with nonresorbable barriers than without barriers; however, it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. Bone morphogenetic proteins may enhance bone formation around implants grafted with Bio-Oss, but there was no reliable evidence supporting the efficacy of other active agents, such as platelet-rich plasma, in conjunction with implant treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To assess the effectiveness and clinical performance of early implant placement, 4–8 (Type 2) or 12–16 weeks (Type 3) after extraction, in single anterior sites. Methods: Studies reporting on Type 2 and Type 3 implant placement were identified. Findings were summarized in evidence tables. Main outcome was implant survival. Peri‐implant soft and hard tissues changes, periodontal parameters, aesthetics and patient‐reported outcomes were also evaluated. Quality of reporting of the included studies was evaluated through Consort, Newcastle–Ottawa scale and IHE quality appraisal checklist. Results: Nineteen eligible articles (seven from one RCT, three from two CCTs and nine from three case series) reporting on 140 patients and 140 implants were included. Type 3 implants showed comparable results to Type 4: 95% vs. 100% survival rates. Studies reported high values of implant survival, minimal technical and biological complications and high aesthetic scores in both short and long‐term follow‐ups for both Type 2 and Type 3 implant placement. Quality evaluation highlighted important weaknesses in the included trials. Conclusions: Limited data on Type 2 and Type 3 implant placement appear to indicate that they can perform well both short and long term. However, the limited number of cases, the significant heterogeneity of the included studies and the high risk of biases importantly reduce the generalizability of the findings. CRD42018117363. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Working Group 2 was convened to address topics relevant to prosthodontics and dental implants. Systematic reviews were developed according to focused questions addressing (a) the number of implants required to support fixed full‐arch restorations, (b) the influence of intentionally tilted implants compared to axial positioned implants when supporting fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), (c) implant placement and loading protocols, (d) zirconia dental implants, (e) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported single crowns and (f) zirconia and metal ceramic implant supported FDPs. Materials and methods: Group 2 considered and discussed information gathered in six systematic reviews. Group participants discussed statements developed by the authors and developed consensus. The group developed and found consensus for clinical recommendations based on both the statements and the experience of the group. The consensus statements and clinical recommendations were presented to the plenary (gathering of all conference attendees) and discussed. Final versions were developed after consensus was reached. Results: A total of 27 consensus statements were developed from the systematic reviews. Additionally, the group developed 24 clinical recommendations based on the combined expertise of the participants and the developed consensus statements. Conclusions: The literature supports the use of various implant numbers to support full‐arch fixed prostheses. The use of intentionally tilted dental implants is indicated when appropriate conditions exist. Implant placement and loading protocols should be considered together when planning and treating patients. One‐piece zirconia dental implants can be recommended when appropriate clinical conditions exist although two‐piece zirconia implants should be used with caution as a result of insufficient data. Clinical performance of zirconia and metal ceramic single implant supported crowns is similar and each demonstrates significant, though different, complications. Zirconia ceramic FDPs are less reliable than metal ceramic. Implant supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients. Materials and methods: An electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Central to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A), immediate placement + early loading (Type 1B), immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C), early placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 2‐3A), early placement + early loading (Type 2‐3B), early placement + conventional loading (Type 2‐3C), late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A), late placement + early loading (Type 4B), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) with implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs) in partially edentulous patients. Only human studies with at least 10 cases and a minimum follow‐up time of 12 months, reporting on solid‐screw‐type implants with rough surfaces and an intra‐osseous diameter between 3 and 6 mm, were included. A cumulative survival rate for each type of the implant placement and loading protocols was weighted by the duration of follow‐up and number of implants. Results: The search provided 5,248 titles from which 2,362 abstracts and 449 full‐text articles were screened. A total of 69 publications that comprised 23 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) and 47 noncomparative studies (34 prospective cohort studies, 13 retrospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and therefore, a meta‐analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The weighted cumulative survival rate of each type of placement and loading protocol was 98.4% (Type 1A), 98.2% (Type 1B), 96.0% (Type 1C), 100% (Type 2‐3B), 96.3% (Type 2‐3C), 97.9% (Type 4A), 98.3% (Type 4B), and 97.7% (Type 4C). Type 1C, Type 2‐3C, Type 4B, and Type 4C were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). Type 1A, Type 1B, and Type 4A were clinically documented (CD), and Type 2‐3A and Type 2‐3B were clinically insufficiently documented (CID). Conclusions: Evaluating outcomes in oral implantology by combining the placement and loading protocols are paramount. The selected loading protocol appears to influence the outcome of immediate implant placement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A classification for peri‐implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, peri‐implantitis, and soft‐ and hard‐tissue deficiencies were addressed. Peri‐implant health is characterized by the absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration. It is not possible to define a range of probing depths compatible with health; Peri‐implant health can exist around implants with reduced bone support. The main clinical characteristic of peri‐implant mucositis is bleeding on gentle probing. Erythema, swelling, and/or suppuration may also be present. An increase in probing depth is often observed in the presence of peri‐implant mucositis due to swelling or decrease in probing resistance. There is strong evidence from animal and human experimental studies that plaque is the etiological factor for peri‐implant mucositis. Peri‐implantitis is a plaque‐associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri‐implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Peri‐implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation, bleeding on probing, and/or suppuration, increased probing depths and/or recession of the mucosal margin in addition to radiographic bone loss. The evidence is equivocal regarding the effect of keratinized mucosa on the long‐term health of the peri‐implant tissue. It appears, however, that keratinized mucosa may have advantages regarding patient comfort and ease of plaque removal. Case definitions in day‐to‐day clinical practice and in epidemiological or disease‐surveillance studies for peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis were introduced. The proposed case definitions should be viewed within the context that there is no generic implant and that there are numerous implant designs with different surface characteristics, surgical and loading protocols. It is recommended that the clinician obtain baseline radiographic and probing measurements following the completion of the implant‐supported prosthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implant placement in post-extraction sites of single teeth in the esthetic zone has been a topic of great interest in the field of implant dentistry since 1990. Triggered by the development of guided bone regeneration, the concept of immediate implant placement became quite popular in the 1990s. In the past 12 years, however, the dental community has begun to focus increasingly on the esthetic outcomes of post-extraction implant placement and several studies indicated a significant risk for the development of mucosal recessions with immediate implants. Parallel with this, significant progress has been made in the understanding of tissue biology in terms of hard and soft tissue alterations post extraction, based on preclinical, clinical and radiological studies. This knowledge has helped better to understand the etiology of these esthetic complications with immediate implant placement. The present review first analyzes the various phases of the development of therapeutic strategies over the years for post-extraction implant placement in single tooth sites in the esthetic zone. It presents the current knowledge concerning the terminology with immediate, early and late implant placement, the risk factors for the development of esthetic complications, and the selection criteria for the various treatment options. In the second part, clinical recommendations are given, since a clinician active in this field of implant therapy can use all treatment options depending on the preoperative analysis including a 3D cone beam computed tomography. The selection criteria for all four treatment options are presented and documented with typical case reports to illustrate the current treatment approaches applied in daily practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers brief information on the International Team for Implantology (ITI) World Symposium to be held on May 4-6, 2017 in Basel, Switzerland.

The article offers information on the World Symposium of the dental association International Team for Implantology to be held on May 4-6, 2017 in Basel, Switzerland.

Objectives To investigate objective and patient-centred aesthetic outcomes for single-tooth implants in the anterior maxilla. Materials and methods Ninety-eight patients (21 men and 77 women) with a mean age of 51.2 ± 13.8 years were included in this retrospective study. A total of 98 maxillary anterior single-tooth implant crowns with a mean functional time of 68.1 months (range 12-245) were evaluated. Aesthetic outcomes were measured by PES and WES. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mood's median and stepwise logistic regression with backward elimination to assess the effect of patient demographics, clinical parameters and surgical methods on aesthetic outcome ( P < 0.05). Results The median PES was 11 and 94% of implants were deemed aesthetically acceptable. The median WES was 9 and 98% of implants were deemed aesthetically acceptable. The PES was positively influenced by the use of a connective tissue graft ( CTG), adding 1 to the score ( P = 0.002) and negatively influenced by membrane use ( P = 0.026). Flapless techniques employed as part of an immediate implant placement protocol yielded better outcomes compared to flapped sites ( P = 0.017). Immediate implant placement demonstrated greater variability in outcomes compared to early implant placement. Conclusions Satisfactory objective and patient-reported aesthetic outcomes were achieved with dental implants replacing missing single teeth in the anterior maxilla. The use of CTG improved the aesthetic outcome mainly by increasing the alveolar process contour. Less variation in outcomes was observed with early (type 2) placement compared to immediate (type 1 placement). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To compare five different implant treatment protocols in the anterior maxilla, including immediate, early, and delayed implant placement, as well as implant placement in conjunction with simultaneous guided bone regeneration and implant placement 3 months following horizontal autologous bone block grafting. Material and Methods Aesthetic indices used included the Pink Esthetic Score ( PES), Papilla Index ( PI), Subjective Esthetic Score ( SES), and White Esthetic Score ( WES). Subjective evaluation of implant aesthetics was performed using a visual analogue scale ( VAS). The VAS consisted of a 10 cm-long line representing the degree of discontent (0%) or satisfaction (100%). Results A total of 153 implants in 153 patients (80 women, 73 men) were evaluated after a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 2.9 years. Mean peri-implant bone loss was 1.6 ± 0.9 mm and not affected by treatment protocol, time after implant placement, or crown length. Papilla presence, by contrast, differed significantly between the protocols: Papilla formation was more pronounced following delayed and immediate implant placement. No statistical significance was found among treatment modalities with regard to PES, SES, or WES. Longer crowns were associated with lower PES and PI ratings and correlated with greater midfacial recession. SES was also influenced by time after implant placement and keratinized mucosa. Patient satisfaction differed significantly among treatment protocols, favoring immediate implant placement. Agreement between objective and subjective aesthetic ratings was low. Conclusion The present study suggests that comparable clinical, radiological, and aesthetic results can be achieved with all treatment protocols. Gingival recession, however, seems to occur in the long term irrespective of the technique used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To evaluate the effect of submerged vs. non-submerged ( NS) protocols in healing outcomes of grafted marginal defects of immediate implants. Materials and methods The second maxillary incisors were extracted bilaterally in six greyhound dogs. Bone level reduced diameter implants were installed into the extraction sockets leaving orofacial gaps of 2 mm wide. Defects were filled with Bio-Oss® and covered with Bio-Gide®. On the one side, the flap was advanced to fully submerge the implant, and on the other, the flap was sutured to allow NS healing. After 3 months of healing, the dogs were sacrificed and block biopsies were obtained to perform histological and morphometric analysis. Results All implants were clinically healthy and well integrated into bone. In the majority of the specimens, the original bone in the coronal 2-3 mm of the buccal crest had completely resorbed and was replaced by a regenerated bone wall consisting of Bio-Oss® particles surrounded by newly formed bone. Horizontal and vertical resorption of the buccal bone resulted in ≥1 mm exposure of the implant surface in one-third of implants. Minor differences existed in some aspects of hard tissue healing between submerged and NS. Conclusion There was very little difference in healing outcomes as well as modelling of the facial bone wall between the submerged and NS protocols in relation to immediate implant placement in this dog model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the 3-year outcomes regarding crestal bone level, clinical parameters, and patient satisfaction, following submerged and transmucosal implant placement for two-piece implants in the anterior maxilla and mandible. Materials and Methods Patients requiring dental implants for single-tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla or mandible were enrolled in a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial. The implants were randomized at placement to either submerged or transmucosal healing, with final restorations placed after 6 months. Radiographic and clinical parameters were recorded after 1, 2, and 3 years; a questionnaire was also used to assess patient satisfaction. A two-sided, unpaired T-test (significance level p ≤ .05) was used to statistically evaluate the differences between the two groups. Results A total of 106 patients were included in the 3-year analysis. The mean change in crestal bone level from implant placement to 3 years was 0.68 ± 0.98 mm ( p < .001) and 0.58 ± 0.77 mm ( p < .001) in the submerged and transmucosal groups, respectively; the differences between the groups were not significant. Clinical parameters remained stable throughout the study, with no significant differences between the groups, and patient satisfaction was good or excellent for over 90% of subjects in both groups. Conclusions The results demonstrate excellent clinical and radiographic conditions after 3 years for implants supporting single-tooth restorations, regardless of whether a submerged or transmucosal surgical technique was used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim In cases with limited bone height, short implants could be a good alternative to augmentation procedures. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the clinical performance of implants of 6 mm or 11 mm in length in the posterior region. Materials and methods In this multicenter trial (six study sites), 95 subjects were included. Subjects were randomly allocated to receiving implants with lengths of either 6 or 11 mm both with a diameter of 4 mm ( Osseo Speed™ 4.0 S; Astra Tech AB; Mölndal, Sweden). In all cases, there had to be sufficient bone height to allow placement of an implant of at least 11 mm in length. Two or three implants were placed per subject using one-stage surgery with a 42-48 days' healing period before loading. They were restored with a screw-retained splinted fixed prosthesis. Clinical and radiographic examinations were performed preoperatively, postsurgery, at loading, and 6 and 12 months after prosthesis placement. Results A total of 208 implants were inserted in 49 subjects receiving 6-mm implants (test) and in 46 subjects receiving 11 mm implants (control). Two 6-mm implants failed before loading and one 6 and 11 mm implants failed before 1-year evaluation. From loading to the 12 months' follow-up, a mean marginal bone gain of 0.06 mm in the 6 mm group and 0.02 mm in the 11 mm group was found ( P = 0.478). Soft tissue behavior was equal in both groups (Bleeding and plaque [ P = 1.0] probing depth [ P = 0.91]). Conclusion One-year data indicate that treatment with the 6 mm implants is as reliable as treatment with the 11 mm implants. This provides a good treatment option in situations with limited bone height in the premolar and molar regions. Whether or not short implants provide a predictable treatment alternative to bone augmentation procedures remains to be investigated in the future randomized controlled clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes after 2 years with bone level implants placed to restore a single missing teeth that needed simultaneous augmentation and were treated with a transmucosal or submerged approach. Methods This study analyzed a subset of patients included in an ongoing prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial ( RCT) involving12 centers where patients were to be followed-up to 5 years after loading. Of the 120 implants that were placed in the original study, and randomly assigned to submerged or non-submerged healing, 52 needed simultaneous augmentation (28 women patients and 24 men patients, between 23 and 78 years of age). Twenty-seven of them received implants with submerged healing ( AuS), while in 25 patients the implants were inserted with a non-submerged protocol ( AuNS). At the 2-year follow-up visit, radiographic crestal bone level changes were recorded as well as soft tissue parameters included Pocket probing depth ( PPD), bleeding on probing ( BoP) and clinical attachment level ( CAL) at teeth adjacent to the implant site. Results After 2 years a small amount of bone resorption was found in both groups (0.37 ± 0.49 mm in the AuS group and 0.54 ± 0.76 in the AuNS group; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between AuS Group and AuNS group for PPD (2.5 vs. 2.4 mm), BOP ( BOP + sites: 8.8% vs. 11.5%) and CAL (2.8 vs. 2.4 mm) at the 2-year follow-up visit. Conclusions When a single implant is placed in the aesthetic zone in conjunction with bone augmentation for a moderate peri-implant defect, submerged and transmucosal healing determine similar outcome, hence there is no need to submerge an implant in this given clinical situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To test whether or not transmucosal healing at two-piece implants is as successful as submerged placement regarding crestal bone levels and patient satisfaction. Material and methods: Adults requiring implants in the anterior maxilla or mandible in regions 21-25, 11-15, 31-35 or 41-45 (WHO) were recruited for this randomized, controlled multi-center clinical trial of a 5-year duration. Randomization was performed at implantation allowing for either submerged or transmucosal healing. Final reconstructions were seated 6 months after implantation. Radiographic interproximal crestal bone levels and peri-implant soft tissue parameters were measured at implant placement (IP) (baseline), 6 and 12 months. Patient satisfaction was assessed by a questionnaire. A two-sided t-test (80% power, significance level α=0.05) was performed on bone-level changes at 6 and 12 months. Results: One hundred and twenty-seven subjects were included in the 12-month analysis (submerged [S]: 52.5%, transmucosal [TM]: 47.2%). From IP to 6 months, the change in the crestal bone level was −0.32 mm ( P<0.001) for the S group and −0.29 mm ( P<0.001) for the TM group. From IP to 12 months, bone-level changes were statistically significant in both groups (S −0.47 mm, P<0.001; TM −0.48 mm, P<0.001). The mean differences of change in the bone levels between the two groups were not statistically significant at either time point, indicating the equivalence of both procedures. For both groups, very good results were obtained for soft tissue parameters and for patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Transmucosal healing of two-piece implants is as successful as the submerged healing mode with respect to tissue integration and patient satisfaction within the first 12 months after IP. To cite this article: Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE, Sanz M, Chen S, Martin WC, Jackowski J, Ivanoff CJ, Cordaro L, Ganeles J, Weingart D, Wiltfang J, Gahlert M. Submerged and transmucosal healing yield the same clinical outcomes with two-piece implants in the anterior maxilla and mandible: interim 1-year results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin. Oral Impl. Res 23, 2012; 211-219. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02210.x [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate dental implant survival in patients with ectodermal dysplasia (ED). To assess patterns of hypodontia in this patient group. A retrospective analysis of the use of dental implants in ED patients treated at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne. Sixty-one implants were placed into 14 patients (nine male and five female). The mean age of patients receiving maxillary implants was 18 years 6 months (range 17 years 9 months−20 years 0 months) and mandibular implants was 17 years 5 months (range 12 years 2 months−21 years 11 months). The mean follow-up period was 3 years 4 months (range 1 year 18 months−5 years 1 month). Forty-three implants were placed in the anterior mandible, three in the posterior mandible and the remaining 15 in the anterior maxilla. Of the 61 implants placed, 54 [88·5%] successfully integrated and were able to be restored. Three of the 15 implants placed into the anterior maxilla [20%] failed, while four of the 46 in the anterior mandible failed [8·7%]. Five of the 14 patients [35·7%] had at least one implant fail prior to abutment connection. At the 12-month review appointments, 41 of the integrated 54 implants [76%] were reviewed and classed as successful, giving an overall success at follow up of 67·2%. Thirteen implants [21·3%] were unable to be reviewed owing to geographical reasons. Teeth most likely to be present in the maxilla were the central incisors [71%], first molars [54%] and canines [43%], whereas in the mandible they were the canines [53%] and the first premolars and first molars [40%]. Dental implants can be placed, restored and loaded in ED patients. Maxillary teeth most likely to be present are the central incisors, canines and first molars, whereas in the mandible the canines, first premolars and molars are most likely to be present. Prior to cessation of growth, implant placement in the symphyseal region of the anterior mandible may be performed with caution. Despite the limited numbers and with due consideration to jaw development, the results support the continual use of endosseous dental implants in this group of patients for optimal clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An abstract on bone augmentation techniques at immediate dental implants is presented.